In my opinion, an EASY question. No, we don't.
As to suicide, there was a case in Oregon, which went to the state supreme court and was decided in favor of putative patients requesting physician-assisted suicide in their quest to die. Oregon has a "Death with Dignity" law that allows physician-assisted suicide. The US Attorney General sued when this law was enacted, saying this was a case of prescribing drugs in an "off preferred use" situation and thus violated the Controlled Substances Act. The case went before SCOTUS as Gonzales. vs. Oregon affirming that states could pass such a law even though another case affirmed that there is not a U.S. constitutional right of suicide. In essence, the Oregon law granted a special exemption for the "off label" use of drugs for assisted suicide. SCOTUS affirmed that this WAS a state's rights issue.
Some decades ago, there was a case involving a terminal cancer patient seeking the right to die. This case wen to the state supreme court and in it, a rather eloquent Oregon judge said (paraphrasing 'cause I can't find the reference): We hold that we have inherent rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, when a patient's physical condition deteriorates such that he no longer has sufficient liberty and has such pain as to deny the pursuit of happiness, who are we to require that he continue to pursue life?
I was impressed at the time with the judge's eloquence and compassion. The above paraphrase doen't even come close. However, time has clouded my memory of the case and Google Gemini claims there is no record of such a case that wasn't eventually decided by SCOTUS. I think Gemini is wrong, but had to give up on the search.
Personally, IF I were bed-ridden and wracked with incurable continuous extreme pain requiring mind-killing pain medication, I would not wish to continue living.
I must add that my viewpoint is partially formed from watching my mother deteriorate over a period of years due to (suspected) Alzheimer's disease. When her attending physician asked that dread question (regarding "Do Not Resuscitate" orders), I realized that it would be wrong to do so. To keep her alive through extreme medicinal procedures in what was basically a living Hell of isolation including the inability to enjoy anything was a point of selfishness on my part. There is that old statement that "all good things come to an end." Even the life of a loved one ends. We must be generous enough to allow that end to happen, despite any urge to claw that person back to life one more time. It just isn't fair to the person whose life is ending.
